- #36
Tazerfish
- 157
- 39
Yeah, and if you think about it, it was one of the few comments that may have actually been useful to the OP!hutchphd said:I will stipulate to "wild-ass guesstimate" if you prefer (see revision). There was certainly an attempt made.
Though honestly, they seem to have left.
They're an author. Saying "nobody knows", while it's true and important to know, is not very useful for someone writing a book.
Especially because it doesn't mean "we have no clue at all". We know pretty damn well that life expectancy won't suddenly be 100+, and I find it exceedingly unlikely that humans would routinely die off under the age of 40, even at 1.4g.
There's different levels of "don't know".
Jrmichler had an interesting approach of reverse-applying zero-g effects, though it's unclear how that might affect life expectancy.
Then there was an interesting point about quicker falls and faster necessary reaction, where folks realized, it's not *that* different. Again, it's not terribly relevant to life expectancy.
No one made a quantitative estimate.
Now, you may argue it's pointless, but I don't think so.
There's a lot of stuff that's hard to predict!
Will stock prices go up or down, who will win the presidency and which teams will win sports cups?
On all of these things, people make predictions; on all of these things, people bet money.
Some of them are clearly better than others at it.
Plus, the equilibrium-price of these "prediction markets" is a pretty good agglomerate of expert opinion.
For the US Presidency, they typically outperform any single expert.
Just because something is deep within the fog of war, doesn't mean there aren't better or worse answers to a question.
Plus, munching a bunch of answers together usually improves the result.
I'd be willing to bet that humans that would have a 80 year lifespan will still die between 65 and 85 (at one to one odds).
Which, to be frank, feels like a pretty conservative estimate, I could either take a steeper bet or narrow the age range down way further.
When writing a book, I'd go with 0-5 years less life expectancy when compared to their equivalent 1g counterparts.
Hell, someone even agreed that medical progress or dutifully applying current health guidelines would result in a larger life expectancy effect than 10% more gravity. I'd guess it's even stronger than 40% more gravity, but I might be way off.
Both *agreement* and *disagreement* are then important in further shaping the best "group guess".
It's okay if you don't agree with this epistemological approach, but I wanted to put it out there. I don't think it was all pointless.
I'm pretty sure, if humanity threw a ton of resources at this, we could give a decent guess, even without some long term experiment with some folks living in a centrifuge at different gravity.
I'll get off my soapbox now.